This is something that personally bugs the shit out of me.....tell me EXACTLY how YOUR freedom is being blocked by having CHOICE in the matter? Nobody is holding a gun to your head, nobody is making you use non free anything, so why should those that want it have to jump through flaming fucking hoops just because it doesn't follow YOUR personal feelings on the subject?

Why is those that are supposedly "for" freedom damned near ALWAYS translate to "free to be like me and do what I like?".

There are plenty of non-free choices... not so many free. I'd like to keep my little free sandbox thanks. Why do you want to take it from me? Obviously many feel the same way or else Debian wouldn't have such a vital community, and perhaps it follows that one of the historical reasons for this vital community is its philosophy and relatively uncompromising attitude (though too compromising for RMS apparently). I have contributed to Debian, though granted in very small ways, and frankly I'd be less motivated with the community soured and schitzophrenic with concerns completely unrelated to the Debian core mission [debian.org]. I have a friend who has abandoned desktop BSD because the community around it as collapsed after Apples involvement... I really don't want to see RMS being right AGAIN, this time about Debian not being strict enough.

Debian is democratic, and Valve is buying votes... Perhaps you feel happy about that happening, but look at desktop BSD after the Apple kickbacks, or hell... the US electoral system. This could f*ck us.

when it comes to his rabid idealism that that is how the world absolutely has to be.

Yay it's the daily "make up random shit about RMS day" today, same as every day.

If you want to not be an idiot, don't parrot lies you read on the internet, actually find out what RMSs views are before talking about them.

RMS is not forcing you or anyone to do anything or even trying to. He believes that non-Free software is user hostile and unethical. He is also putting his money where his mouth is and doing his level best to bring the world of Free software about.

He's quite clear about what you should do if you have no choice: he himself used proprietary software to build the GNU userland system, and continued to use proprietary software until the kernel came about. In fact only very recently has he been able to get a computer which runs nothing but Free software end-to-end, meaning that he has kept up his use of proprietary software until able to do otherwise.

It's not about how the world has to be it's about how the world should be.

to eat my ass when it comes to his rabid idealism

Basically you're mocking him for trying to live his life as ethically as possible and helping others do the same. That makes you worse than any insult you could lay upon him.

No, as a matter of fact I'm better than Stallman. I'm not saying he should stop his idealism, only that it is stupid to push it onto others as hard as he does. He is entitled to his opinion, as I am entitled to mine. I am not disagreeing with his opinion, I am disagreeing with him trying to force / coerce other people into agreeing with him.

As for the complete bullshit about RMS using non-free software, no shit he had to build the first toolchain from non-free compilers et al. they won't spring up from noth

I am disagreeing with him trying to force / coerce other people into agreeing with him.

Well, then you're an idiot because you're disagreeing with him over something he doesn't do.

He does not try to coerce or force, he tries to persuade. Massive difference.

As for the complete bullshit about RMS using non-free software, no shit he had to build the first toolchain from non-free compilers et al. they won't spring up from nothing.

He could have bootstrapped, should he have chosen to. You know, you used to be able to buy Z80 systems where you could key in machine code on the front panel. I've actually used one.

He could have gone that route. It would have been much more painful and slower but it would have been possible. He chose to use a more expedient route.

Yet after that I know for a fact he has said, in the last decade no less - on multiple occasions, that he would rather use crippled hardware rather than use non-free drivers that are available gratis from manufacturers.

Yes, and? He's not forcing you to do the same.

He also said everyone should do the same, stating it in plain and unambiguous language no less.

Yes and? He's not forcing you to do the same. I think everyone SHOULD buy free range produce. I will argue (like RMS) why it's the ethical choice. I will state clearly and unambiguously that OI think you should live your life ethically.

Those are opinions which we both have a right to (as you so graciously conceed). What use are opinions if one is not going to voice them?

He's not forcing you to do anything.

So yes, his viewpoints are quite well known on the issues of non-free software - if it isn't open, do without.

Except again you misrepresent him with subtelty. I get the feeling you are not interested in an honest discussion.

You flipped smoothly from "crippled" to "doing without". The big distinction is you can work with crippled stuff but not with nonexistent stuff.

Freedom is not an absolute. Your freedoms end where others' begin. You are not free to enslave people, deny education to women as the Taliban wants to do, recklessly endanger property and lives, litter, trespass, and so on.

In this case, should vendors have the "freedom" to keep customers and users in the dark? That's why we still don't have good open source drivers for some vendors' products. Nice DRM is no better than nice slavery.

In this case, should vendors have the "freedom" to keep customers and users in the dark?

Yes. They do.I don't like it, but that's what "freedom" means; not being able to force others to do as you'd like.The problem here isn't vendors being evil, it's customers paying them to be evil then complaining about it.

How about using the law to prevent others from reverse engineering a product? Or jailing someone for investigating the security of a product, like what happened to Dmitry Sklyarov? That's not freedom, that's power no one should have, because it is too easy to abuse, and is abused. The DMCA takedown provision is routinely abused to hinder and silence perfectly legitimate competitors and critics. Many legitimate videos have been taken down from Youtube on the mere accusation of infringement, without any p

You are not free to enslave people, deny education to women as the Taliban wants to do, recklessly endanger property and lives, litter, trespass, and so on.

actually you are. You can do all of those things - there isn't anyone actively stopping you; there's no Tom Cruise watching everything you do and jumping in just before you do it; there's no robot 'guardian' following you around ready to zap you the moment it thinks you're going to do something bad.

Of course, society is also free to to lock you away, and/or otherwise punish you to ensure you don't do it again, or attempt to persuade you not to do it again once you're released.

That's what freedom is all about - the ability to make your own choices and not have someone decide for you, but it also doesn't mean there's no responsibility for your actions either.

you misunderstand. You have the ability to do anything you want, even bad things that are proscribed by law, morals or consensus.

Its a natural-world form of freedom, not the legal version you're thinking of. Kind of like how you have free will to do whatever you like.

However, my examples show how your freedom (in both senses) could be subverted - I like the robot overlord following you around to ensure you really do not, no matter what, have the capability of performing an act that violates the rules that i

How does Valve restrict your freedom by giving you the option of using Steam?

Of course, Free is better than non-Free. You can't expect everyone else to bow to your every request, though. Feel free not to use their non-Free products and services, but don't expect them to waive their conditions just for you.

This is something that personally bugs the shit out of me.....tell me EXACTLY how YOUR freedom is being blocked by having CHOICE in the matter? Nobody is holding a gun to your head, nobody is making you use non free anything, so why should those that want it have to jump through flaming fucking hoops just because it doesn't follow YOUR personal feelings on the subject?

Why is those that are supposedly "for" freedom damned near ALWAYS translate to "free to be like me and do what I like?".

Except Debian tends to be one of the more Free distributions out there - turning down a LOT of stuff.

In fact, it's why Ubuntu was created - Debian is a great distribution with very powerful open and free beliefs. Even when they get in the way of users. Ubuntu forked Debian, trying to apply a more "user-centric" view by adding appropriate non-free stuff to create something that users expect - including stuff like non-free codecs and such that users expect, and Debian lacks on purpose.

The codecs (etc) are avoided because Debian doesn't want to deal with liability or licences. Steam doesn't present that particular problem. The intellectual property owner is actively contributing the software.

Yes, it's non-free, and it needs to be in the appropriate repo. But this isn't a "destroy the project, bring on the wrath of **** **, and sue everybody into oblivion" level of non-free.

(Ubuntu, on the other hand, wants more than just to be a better Debian. They've got a specific vision of where Li

I'll just add that Debian split the non-free stuff into a separate repository, not enabled by default. Not only are you free not to install non-free software, you get an easy way of making sure that non-free doesn't creep in by mistake.

...and non-free was bitterly fought over and split the community. Debians place has been the spartan outpost standing behind the flashy Ubuntus and Mints of this world... it's there for when people start wondering about the OS the others stand on, and why it exists in the first place. Much of this software is generated by people who are people steeped in the free software ethos - or "freetards" if you prefer - and are bloodyminded enough to sacrifice a lot to live their. You may think it's folly, but i

...and non-free was bitterly fought over and split the community. Debians place has been the spartan outpost standing behind the flashy Ubuntus and Mints of this world... it's there for when people start wondering about the OS the others stand on, and why it exists in the first place. Much of this software is generated by people who are people steeped in the free software ethos - or "freetards" if you prefer - and are bloodyminded enough to sacrifice a lot to live their. You may think it's folly, but it's f

Which is why I'm glad to see so many pointing out their doublespeak when it comes to freedom, because for too damned many the only "freedom" you should have is the freedom to do as they say and be like them, no freedom at all.

I mean look at what we are talking about here? Honestly if you are for freedom, which at its core is simply the right to choose then you should have absolutely zero problem with the non free repo as it is just that, a way to allow those that aren't fanatical about their software licens

To be fair, there is some confusion between people like yourself, who advocate the user's freedom to choose whether to use free only software, and the anti-GPL crowd, who advocate a developer's right to choose whether their addition are free or not.

While I am all for the user's freedom to not use free software (and, in fact, the non-free repository is enabled on my machines, and like I said, I do have some proprietary software installed), whenever I choose a license for free [lingnu.com] software [lingnu.com] that [sourceforge.net] I write [pgfoundry.org] from [github.com] scrat [sourceforge.net]

The problem is you are equating being for choice as being "Anti-GPL" and THAT is the door through which all the RIAA stye FUD enters, because for the pro-GPL crowd it isn't enough that they choose to run only free, its quite obvious from the posts above and below you that they don't want you to have the ability to run anything else.

Again I'd like it explained how EXACTLY is the "big bad corp" gonna "steal" the BSD code? Its still there, stil

No one is talking about shipping DRM as part of Debian (or even in non-free). Valve isn't talking about shipping its games inside Debian. Their games are proprietary, cost money, and contain DRM, and at least the last two make them technically incompatible with the Debian distribution system.

What Valve is offering is for Debian developers to get, free of charge, a Steam subscription to play (almost) all of Valve games. Assuming you are not a Debian developer, you will not see any actual difference in Debian

If you've gotten the games through the Humble Bundle, then you might be even more interested in Steam. All (most?) of the Humble Bundle games come with Steam keys so you can immediately add them to your Steam library. Makes it much easier to keep track of your library and manage downloads between computers... the downside is only 1 computer can be connected to steam at a time (although off-line mode is lovely for things like that).

I already have the games. They are DRM free. I already have a way to keep track of my library. It's at https://www.humblebundle.com/h... [humblebundle.com]. All it takes is a single password. Why would I want another one, merely for the privilege of having another one?

Most of the games I have (at least, those I'm actually playing) have no multiplayer mode that I'm aware of.

The "single connection" limitation is not much of an issue for me (I do, actually, honor the conditions I bought the games under, which is that

1) Making my library available on whatever computer I am using (provided the games support it), without me having to drag around an external drive of some sort.

2) Keeping my downloaded games up to date, and the saved games synchronized between computers.

Granted I'm probably an abnormal user in that I have a desktop at home and a laptop I use for travel/work, but it makes it easy to keep things in sync and start a game on one, then continue on the other, wi

Could be...for Valve, though that's not a bad thing. I'm not even angry; I'm being so sincere right now.

If the debian developers were more interested in something consumer focused like games, then Linux could have a better chance at entering the consumer space (whereas right now it is mostly enterprise focused.) Free games that work with the thing you created isn't a bad way to attract that.

Not just because this builds rapport with the community, but also because debian developers playing lots of Valve games will be debian developers with lots of firsthand exposure to any bugs or areas that could be improved; and the best work often comes from someone scratching a personal itch. Valve plays the game well (no pun intended).

Thanks for contributing! I've contributed very little code directly to Debian, but it may well be like some open source projects where developers are expected to spend ten times as much time on a feature than it takes to submit a patch.

In Moodle, for example, I added a feature that took about two hours to develop a working patch. Just before submitting the patch, I became an official developer. Seven MONTHS later I was done with that two hour patch. First, I needed to document the proposal for the new feature, then get (documented) community feedback. I had to apply a huge list of style rules to the patch, covering things like variable naming standards, whitespace, etc. Then I needed the component owner to review it. He pointed out that while it complied with the CURRENT standards, it didn't use the newly developed APIs that were chosen for the upcoming release. I recoded it to use the upcoming standards, and some design changes the component owner wanted. This process involved rebasing against master at several times - any time someone else needed to look at it. The new feature required very minor tweaks to some existing classes. Since I had touched those classes, I needed to update those old classes to the new coding standards as well. Then the integrator pointed out I was missing the suites of unit tests, etc.

In all, a two hour patch submission turns out to be 80 hours when you do all of the "official developer" stuff like unit tests and all. So that's one distinction between a developer, who is on the hook for all of that stuff vs. a contributor who graciously submits code.

Please understand I'm in no way devaluing any contributions. For most open source projects, I contribute patches only. I now have a new appreciation for the committed developers who do the grinding work required to have my code integrated into a high quality project.

Ps - a LOT of what I mentioned above are tasks a non-programmer or newbie programmer can help with, if anyone is looking for ways to contribute to projects you enjoy or are interested in.

Debian Developer is a well defined status with full upload rights and voting rights. The application process is also documented but well basically it consists of

1: get your key signed by a couple of existing debian developers (in a pinch one debian developer and one2: find an existing dd to advocate for you3: make your application4: wait to be assigned an application manager5: go through a questioning/testing process with the application manager6: wait for final approval, account creations etc from front desk, DAM and keyring maint

Nowadays it's generally reccomended to go for the lower status of "Debian Maintainer" (restricted upload rights, no voting rights) first and then move on to applying for Debian Developer (I went straight to DD myself so it IS still possible to go directly in the right circumstances but it's not considered the normal route anymore).

The process of becoming a Debian Developer can take quite some time both in terms of overall process length and the ammount you will have to learn about debian and the contributions you will have to demonstrate you have made to pass it. If you are serious about contributing to Debian then it's worth it, if you are just doing it for the handful of goodies (the ones i'm aware of are lwn subscription, ghandi.net hosting discount, and now valve games) that are given out debian developers then you are wasting your time.

Agreed. I'm sure internally, Valve deals with the same circus of foibles that every other tech company sees. But externally, looking at their overarching business strategy, it's really satisfying to see them playing the long game, and knowing that in all probability the PC gaming market will continue to benefit from their efforts.

The announcement on the mailing list says that developers need to send a signed email (signed with a key in the Debian keyring) to the Valve contact to request a redemption code. So my question is, what does it take to be recognised by Debian as a developer and get your key added to their keyring? Is this just for core Debian coders, or do documentation authors, package maintainers, etc, count too? This could be a great incentive for more people to get involved with the more mundane tasks that people usuall

Steam itself is free. And how many valve games are there actually? 2 left for deads, 2 portals, and the half-life/counterstrike series? Anyone who wants those can pick them up for 75% off during any of their many sales... its what $20 or 30 bucks worth of games tops?

Not to diminish the act, or my appreciation of Valve's recognition of the Debian developer team... but I can't really see a FLOOD of people trying to get on the debian development team over a few games, mo

SteamOS is a good thing, since it will reduce the amount of proprietary software used by many gamers. Eventually, Debian may reach the stage where SteamOS and Steam become obsolete, in which case those gamers can switch to regular Debian. However, DDs are *already* on regular Debian, so this would be a step backwards, for short-term gratification.

I don't want to deny DDs this gift, but they should be aware those bearing it may be Greeks.

The first thing that came to mind when I saw 'gratis licenses for Free

Debian unstable is the rolling release. Debian testing is a slightly more conservative rolling release, with updates screened mostly automatically. Stable is for people who want a manually "release-managed" approach with multi-year support lifetime.

No, Debian unstable is equivalent to a nightly build. At times it is usable, but many times it is broken so bad that you cannot even install it.

No, breaking changes are tested in experimental first. Unstable is usable by an end-user absent some really rare breakage. I've been using it as a regular user who isn't any kind of Debian developer as my desktop system for 10 years.

I tried being on unstable for a while, and it's actually pretty stable. In fact, I have no complaints at all besides the too-frequent updates, which was what eventually drove me back to testing.

That, and the fact that things in Gnome seemingly kept breaking, only to find out later that it was intentional and part of Gnome's strategy to slowly make their desktop experience less and less usable.I fixed that by moving to KDE, which improved considerably since I last tried it years ago.

It will corrupt the community... why can't you see that? Debian Developers have voting rights in a democratic community, and Valve is buying votes just the same as if paper bags were being passed under desks. Perhaps that's not Valves intention, but if they don't own Debian they will when all the extra gamer/developers sign up for Debian Developer status to get their kickbacks.

Okay, let me make up for poking fun of you by providing some constructive criticism of your original comment.You know, 98% of stories on Slashdot -or stuff I read in practically any news source, for that matter- doesn't really apply to me and has no impact on my life. I think this is a pretty obvious thing. Yet it doesn't diminish the wish and the value of staying informed about things, because it's good not to be an ignorant, assumptive piece of shit about stuff.

The linked article says 'unspecified open source license'. Not all open source licenses are free (as in libre). Even if it is free, it doesn't change the fact that Valve primarily makes non-free software.

I expect the tweaks and changes they've had to make have been or will be posted upstream in due time. Who would want to keep applying patches instead of submitting them to the source projects for integration?

Somehow I lost my rating points between loading the page and reading your post. Sorry I couldn't mod you up.

In the future we're going to have locked down devices running proprietary drivers, with proprietary apps and DRM'd content. But it'll run on open-source software. And the community is happy because "we finally got the manufacturers to write drivers for Linux".

why the hell should the open source community praise Valve for bringing proprietrary software to its most famous platform?

For one thing, video games help ease the transition to a free platform. For another, video games by their nature are going to be proprietary [pineight.com] because there isn't currently as much of a reciprocal sharing mentality around the components of a video game other than code (meshes, textures, maps, audio, and the like) as there is around code.

That's fine, no one is expecting them to publish the art portion of the game under a free license. It would be nice to get the actual code, but that is not the problem here either. What makes this a farce is the Digital Restrictions Management. Once I buy the game I should be able to run it without running another binary that I cannot audit or even relink and whose professed function - communicating with Valve and possibly preventing me from doing what I want with my computer if they do not send the right r

If your gaming PC does not connect to the internet, I'm guessing you don't do much multiplayer...

That said: Steam's DRM is the least evil of them all, since it lets you re-download your games on any PC, anywhere as long as you remember your password. The "freedom" to not care if my gigs of games are wiped out in a hard drive failure, to copy the steam directory as-is to any PC on the same architecture and being able to straight up play, and to arbitrarily delete game files if I temporarily need the space i

The first and last of these things I can do with any game I have purchased, either via a physical disk or via a persistent login/download link from e.g. shrapnel. The middle one is the only one that is at all unique and it doesnt seem important at all in context of the DRM.

Disk is useless if lost, damaged, or 1000 miles away in a cabinet while you're on a business trip. The middle one is very useful if you want to play games on a PC in a computer lab or library. Back in my college days, being able to plug an external drive into a lab PC and play counterstrike was quite handy for killing time between classes. And the steam DRM is basically: it needs to phone home about once a month. So once a month it uses about 2 megabytes of bandwidth for DRM, big friggin deal. It's akin

Since you seem to have a habit of cutting out half my comments to distort their meaning, and failing to address those parts which you cut out, I can only assume you are incapable of a proper debate. I bid you adieu...

If your gaming PC does not connect to the internet, I'm guessing you don't do much multiplayer...

I don't see how not [pineight.com].Step 1: Connect PC's HDMI, DVI, or VGA output to the HDMI or VGA input of a television.Step 2: If DVI or VGA was used, connect PC's output to the audio input of a television or stereo system.Step 3: Connect two to four wired Xbox 360 controllers, an Xbox 360 PC wireless receiver, or other USB game controllers to the PC.Step 4: Start game and choose single-screen multiplayer mode.

If you don't agree with a game's licensing, etc, you will never be forced to use it.

I was forced to use specific computer games in school, many of them published by MECC.

why the hell should the open source community praise Valve for bringing proprietrary software to its most famous platform?

Because if anything is going to bring users to Linux it'll be games. Games are what tie me to Windows, and I'd be more interested in testing Wine on my existing library if I can get my newest games out of the (proverbial) box on Linux.

The fact is that an addition of proprietary software to a largely open ecosystem is not a benefit, but a threat.

Not as much of a threat as Microsoft's exclusive ownership of the PC gaming world.

This statement that the FOSS is praising Valve sends out the message that the FOSS community wants another Windows or Mac OS, i.e. another operating system with a great amount of support by proprietary software vendors. That is not what the FOSS community is about.

Please stop talking as if the "FOSS community" was a unified front. I would love to move to a FOSS operating system if I could still play my proprietary games on it. Valve may actually give me a chance.

why the hell should the open source community praise Valve for bringing proprietrary software to its most famous platform?

Because if anything is going to bring users to Linux it'll be games. Games are what tie me to Windows, and I'd be more interested in testing Wine on my existing library if I can get my newest games out of the (proverbial) box on Linux.

Valve does, however, and they would very much like you to as well. If they can generate a little buzz and fool you into thinking you should be 'praising' them for this then their marketing folks have done their job.

You appear to suggest that video games instead be developed as free software and free cultural works. So who will feed and shelter developers of Free video games with production values comparable to the proprietary games of 2013?

Try to remember that we are talking about Free as in Freedom, not free as in beer.

Please explain how that would work in practice for video game development. If the code, meshes, textures, maps, scripts, and audio of a video game are Free as in Freedom, including end users' Freedom to make and distribute copies, then how is the game's developer supposed to be paid for more than the first copy? Or if a developer is expected to sell only one copy, how can any developer make a game compelling enough to charge millions of dollars for one copy?

A free game engine is useless without a "mission pack" of artistic content. For example, a Doom source port is useless without WADs. If all mission packs for a given engine are non-free, the game will be excluded from repositories because it requires a non-free component in order to be useful. For example, a free video game engine uploaded to F-Droid that requires or strongly recommends the use of non-free mission packs would be marked with the NonFreeAdd antifeature [f-droid.org], and applications with antifeatures wer

"A free game engine is useless without a "mission pack" of artistic content. For example, a Doom source port is useless without WADs."

*Useless* is pushing the matter, but yes, you need the artistic content to play. With the Doom engine alone, and no missions, you would have to build your own missions before you could play them - and that's fine, as long as there is no requirement to install DRM in order to create missions!

"If all mission packs for a given engine are non-free, the game will be excluded from

With the Doom engine alone, and no missions, you would have to build your own missions before you could play them - and that's fine, as long as there is no requirement to install DRM in order to create missions!

That and build the tools to build the missions in the format expected by the engine.

There are plenty of ways to distribute your stuff and I dont really care - until you try to sneak DRM onto my machine.

Which raises the second question: How should the developer of a video game with a free engine and all-rights-reserved artistic content deter unlawful copying of the all-rights-reserved artistic content?

"Which raises the second question: How should the developer of a video game with a free engine and all-rights-reserved artistic content deter unlawful copying of the all-rights-reserved artistic content?"

And that's an interesting question, but it's not as if it is the question is any different, or any easier, if the entire ball of wax is proprietary. You can search for unauthorised distribution on the web, bittorrent, etc. and issue take down notices and if you are smart about how you do it it might not eat